Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Off-topic, but...

Regading Ranke's "see-saw analogy" - I've never seen the original posting/context of it - using word search for JREF is obviously useless now to find it. I was always curious what was so funny about it. he was just explaining it again at the LCF, and used this image:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/eye%20of%20the%20storm/seesaw-leverage.png
Is this the one he used here? Is this what made it so funny, cause it's a hoot. Or if this is new, just look at it for a minute to see why there's nothing impossible about this.
 
T.A.M. said:
If McCain wins, those voices in other nations could make the "movement", an actual movement again.

If Obama wins, the "movement" will be relegated to the shelf next to the JFK CTs and Moon Hoax Files.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I'm willing to wager that in the weeks and months after Obama's (fingers crossed) victory, you will not see the disappearance nor abatement of what is called the Truth Movement.

I reject labels in general, but I'm willing to admit that I was wrong that there is no such thing as a Truth Movement. I realize now that there are enough people who claim to belong to such a movement and generally participate in this movement.

I just never did and doubt I ever will. I don't see research as being in a movement.
 
Caustic Logic said:
Off-topic, but...

Regading Ranke's "see-saw analogy" - I've never seen the original posting/context of it - using word search for JREF is obviously useless now to find it. I was always curious what was so funny about it. he was just explaining it again at the LCF, and used this image:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/eye%20of%20the%20storm/seesaw-leverage.png
Is this the one he used here? Is this what made it so funny, cause it's a hoot. Or if this is new, just look at it for a minute to see why there's nothing impossible about this.
Click to expand...



No, that's a new image. His original was a badly done hand drawing. I'm sure someone here has it saved as one of their images, so hopefully it will get posted.

ETA: I found the original post for the Famous quote. The image was posted in a post a bit earlier, but apparently he's deleted that image from it's source.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2148743#post2148743
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
No, that's a new image. His original was a badly done hand drawing. I'm sure someone here has it saved as one of their images, so hopefully it will get posted.

ETA: I found the original post for the Famous quote. The image was posted in a post a bit earlier, but apparently he's deleted that image from it's source.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2148743#post2148743
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. If it's the one I think, it's Lloyd's drawing, not Craig's. Same page:
I posted the image that he drew.
Click to expand...
I wanted to look into this because he's making a fuss about 'the JREFfers" faking fun of his analogy. Fact is, of course, it maes sense given his presumptions. heavy end + gravity and all that, given that the end inside is not anchored to anything..

But of course the photo he's now using (above) has the girl's end anchored to the ground, and in the case of Lloyd's cab, the light end would have been held by the backrest part of the back seat - not the leather, but the actual seat , with its wire frame and all. You can see where something straied it upwards a couple of inches, in addition to the tear that may have been from entry or from when they pulled it out, or a bit of each. It may have forced itself in there a foot or more deep as well.
backseatclose.jpg


You see, CIT, this is what you get when you do a little investigating and share your results. Stop doing that. The damage to the back seat renders your see-saw analogy moot.
 
beachnut said:
The 9/11 truth movement was never alive. It is a fiction based snake oil salesman enterprise.
The movement is dead, still born since 9/11! The goal:
Gage fleeces idiots from money to fund his junket to Europe.
DRG sells other people opinions and lies in his books as he spends his earning in business trips to be written off against his gains (called business write-off, we all do that when we are in business for ourselves, it is business!)
Rodriguez making time on his "hero" status.
Capitalism in action, Gage acts nuts and nuts fund him, DRG sell nut case ideas and nuts buy it, and Rodriguez does nothing and makes some scratch doing nothing.

The total evidence combined of Gaga, DRG, Rodriquez, you and all 9/11 truth; is it still zero?
Click to expand...

I thought it was sympathy for terrrrrrrrists that motivated favourite twoofer celebrities in the beachnut nut universe, not worldy goods and chattels.
 
RedIbis said:
I'm willing to wager that in the weeks and months after Obama's (fingers crossed) victory, you will not see the disappearance nor abatement of what is called the Truth Movement.

I reject labels in general, but I'm willing to admit that I was wrong that there is no such thing as a Truth Movement. I realize now that there are enough people who claim to belong to such a movement and generally participate in this movement.

I just never did and doubt I ever will. I don't see research as being in a movement.
Click to expand...

Weeks to months...maybe, maybe not, but given how low the "movement" is now, it will fall into insignificance after an Obama win.

As for it being a movement, it really isn't now, as the numbers of dedicated followers, promoters, and general snake oil salesmen has dropped off dramatically.

Back in 2006 it was a "movement". It had many prominent members (Fetzer, Wood, Jones, A.Jones, Avery, etc...) who were active in the publicity and promotion of the movement and its themes. They were getting air time, even on MSM. There were videos popping up right, left, and center. You had multiple active protests, at GZ, and other places.

Now, you have the leaders of the "movement" bitterly divided, more interested in their own fame, and piece of the ever small 9/11 truth pie. The "protests" are now nothing more than a dozen or so angry young men.

If your idea of research is "science" where facts are ignored in favor of bogus bullcrap that promotes false ideas based on speculation and opinion only, then yes I guess there is 9/11 truth "research".

As a clinician, and someone who has, and is currently, participating in LEGITIMATE scientific research, I can tell you I see little REAL research going on in the 9/11 truth arena.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Weeks to months...maybe, maybe not, but given how low the "movement" is now, it will fall into insignificance after an Obama win.

As for it being a movement, it really isn't now, as the numbers of dedicated followers, promoters, and general snake oil salesmen has dropped off dramatically.

Back in 2006 it was a "movement". It had many prominent members (Fetzer, Wood, Jones, A.Jones, Avery, etc...) who were active in the publicity and promotion of the movement and its themes. They were getting air time, even on MSM. There were videos popping up right, left, and center. You had multiple active protests, at GZ, and other places.

Now, you have the leaders of the "movement" bitterly divided, more interested in their own fame, and piece of the ever small 9/11 truth pie. The "protests" are now nothing more than a dozen or so angry young men.

If your idea of research is "science" where facts are ignored in favor of bogus bullcrap that promotes false ideas based on speculation and opinion only, then yes I guess there is 9/11 truth "research".

As a clinician, and someone who has, and is currently, participating in LEGITIMATE scientific research, I can tell you I see little REAL research going on in the 9/11 truth arena.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

You hope so. I won't get into a drawn out battle about this but you have to understand that your promotion of what you call "LEGITIMATE scientific research" can't possibly be squared with what NIST has produced.

I would suggest that there is a great deal of independent scientific inquiry going on right now, some good, some not so good. In fact, I see very little actual scientific research going on in support of the official story from debunkers. The purpose of debunking is tearing down arguments, as opposed to sincere research
 
RedIbis said:
You hope so. I won't get into a drawn out battle about this but you have to understand that your promotion of what you call "LEGITIMATE scientific research" can't possibly be squared with what NIST has produced.

I would suggest that there is a great deal of independent scientific inquiry going on right now, some good, some not so good. In fact, I see very little actual scientific research going on in support of the official story from debunkers. The purpose of debunking is tearing down arguments, as opposed to sincere research
Click to expand...

1. I don't "hope" either way. If the truth "movement" returns as a movement, it will only give me more to comment on. If it dies out, I will move on to other things.

2. Please show me where NIST falls short of LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH or investigation? I would be interested in your critique of how they were either "Illegitimate" or "unscientific" in their approach, given what they had to work with 2-3 years after the event.

3. I would say there is SOME inquiry going on, most by unqualified wannabes with an agenda. I have seen very little, if any, quality research from someone qualified in the given area.

4. The "Debunkers" or those who support the official account of the attacks, do not have to produce any more research, as far as I can tell, as the NIST reports and FBI investigations seem to have covered it all.

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
You hope so. I won't get into a drawn out battle about this but you have to understand that your promotion of what you call "LEGITIMATE scientific research" can't possibly be squared with what NIST has produced.
Click to expand...

Care to show us anything significant NIST got wrong? In your professional opinion?

RI said:
I would suggest that there is a great deal of independent scientific inquiry going on right now, some good, some not so good. In fact, I see very little actual scientific research going on in support of the official story from debunkers. The purpose of debunking is tearing down arguments, as opposed to sincere research
Click to expand...

One guy who is doing very good work is Gregory Urich. A truther who is actually after the truth and does not shirk from what he finds even when it does not align with his beliefs. The rest of the research seems to be from morons like Gage and the CIT and pft clowns

The famous JONES now refuses to publish Gregory's work because it proves most of their papers are junk. How honest is that?

The debunkers do not have to do scientific research we just have to counter the lies of the TM about the existing evidence. That is probably why got a lot of them involved in the first place. It certainly was with me.
 
T.A.M. said:
4. The "Debunkers" or those who support the official account of the attacks, do not have to produce any more research, as far as I can tell, as the NIST reports and FBI investigations seem to have covered it all.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Hee hee! Faith lives.
 
bonavada said:
Not quite.


BV
Click to expand...

The purpose of debunking is to provide refuge for those with damaged egos who need to be repeatedly reassured that they are right and that everyone else outside their select, enlightened group is a moron.

Partly.
 
Last edited:
The purpose of debunking is to provide refuge for those with damaged egos who need to be repeatedly reassured that they are right and that everyone else outside their select, enlightened group is a moron.
Click to expand...

OK, so, show us on what the Truth Movement is right so it is a decisive evidence against debunkers.
 
JihadJane said:
The purpose of debunking is to provide refuge for those with damaged egos who need to be repeatedly reassured that they are right and that everyone else outside their select, enlightened group is a moron.

Partly.
Click to expand...

Not everyone who is not a debunker is a moron. Twoofers are morons though. Or frauds. Or crazy. Or some combination.

Even if it is an ego thing, so what? Debunkers have still exposed twoofers to be the crazy, moronic, frauds that they are.
 
1. My ego is far from damaged.
2. I do not need reassurance that I am right. On 9/11, I know I am.
3. Yes, those who believe that 19 Jihadists carried out 9/11, are enlightened.
4. Those who do not believe so, are either mislead, ignorant or MORONS, take your pick.

TAM;)
 
dtugg said:
Not everyone who is not a debunker is a moron. ...

Even if it is an ego thing, so what? Debunkers have still exposed twoofers to be the crazy, moronic, frauds that they are.
Click to expand...

If so, to what purpose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom